Discussing Evolution? Keep it Simple
Flying low and under the cloak of darkness, the helicopters and transport planes approached Desert One. The mission of Blue Light, an elite Pentagon antiterrorist team, was to free the 53 Americans being held hostage in Tehran by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Desert One was the code name given to the first staging area of this ultra-secret mission. The Dasht-e-Kavir Desert was chosen as the refueling point because the C-130 transport planes could land on its salt flats.
Their mission had already been plagued with several serious problems. Two of the eight Sea Stallion helicopters that had left the nuclear carrier, US Nimitz, had been rendered inoperative. The first chopper was forced to land due to mechanical problems. The second chopper turned back because its gyroscope failed in a sandstorm. Once on the ground at Desert One, other problems developed. A bus with 44 Iranian citizens stumbled across them. The passengers were held captive while the commandos shot into the engine to incapacitate the bus. Then, a gas truck and a pickup truck drove by. While trying to incapacitate these engines, the gas truck exploded and two people from the pickup escaped. The element of surprise was no longer guaranteed.
However, the nightmare was not yet over. A third chopper was found to have a severe hydraulic malfunction. Thus, the mission had to be aborted. Six choppers were needed, only five were left. Adding insult to injury, as they retreated, the prop of another helicopter sliced into one of the transport planes producing a blazing fireball. Eight brave servicemen died.
The impending investigation produced much criticism, some warranted, some not. One criticism often voiced was that the mission was too complex, leaving little tolerance for error. Some of the planners conceded that this complex mission violated an old Army rule called KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid). The simpler the concept, the more understandable it is and easier to execute. (Source: US News and W.R., May 5, 1980.)
This principle of "keeping it simple" is important in diffusing the issue of evolution as well. For most lay-Christians, a simple approach is the best. This simple approach will be easier for you to explain and easier for the evolutionist to comprehend.
There are several different ways to kill a tree. It can be killed by cutting off all the branches or by cutting through the trunk at ground level. Both approaches will work, but the first is much more complex and requires more time and energy. Likewise, a person can be shown the errors of evolution either through a simple or a complex approach. The errors of evolution can be shown by either disproving the main premise of the theory itself (the trunk of the tree) or by disproving each of its MANY details (the branches).
There are three prominent problems with trying to disprove the very technical details of evolution. First, since the theory of evolution is so complex, it is easy to be sidetracked with time-consuming topics that are seldom profitable or convincing. Second, to disprove adequately the theory of evolution, many complex issues must be covered systematically. Since a lack of time and interest usually makes this difficult, many issues are left unresolved. As a result, the evolutionist does not see a need to change his view. Third, since it is difficult to be an expert on the many complex issues, a knowledgeable evolutionist can "snow" or "push around" the uninformed Christian with many confusing facts. Since the Christian cannot refute that for which he is unfamiliar, the discussion is left a draw.
"Keep it simple" applies mainly to the Christians who are not well-versed in the study of evolution. There are many creation researchers who are effective in refuting evolution on a deep and more technical level. These people, though, have spent much of their lives researching the material. They are familiar with many complicated issues and can hold their own with knowledgeable evolutionists. The intent of this chapter is not to provide the Christian with an in-depth understanding of the errors of evolution; several books would be needed to accomplish that. This chapter was written to provide the lay-Christian with some basic tools to help them avoid being lured into fruitless arguments that would sidetrack them from presenting the gospel.
Often, it is not necessary to go through the complicated process of proving humans did not evolve from lower life-forms. Generally, all that is needed is to show that matter, on any level, cannot advance on its own. The easiest way of doing this is to look at the very first stage of evolution. If evolution cannot get beyond the first stage, there is no need to disprove the following stages.
I spent hours making precise measurements of my bathroom to cut the new carpet. I drew my lines and carefully made each cut. When I finished, I had a masterpiece. I had even impressed myself! However, when I went to lay the carpet down, I found one small problem. I drew the lines on the wrong side of the carpet resulting in a mirror image. I must have checked my brain in at the door when I started working on the carpet. Although my carpet had some very impressive and complicated measurements, it was still wrong. It was worthless.
The accumulation of many complicated and impressive measurements can produce the illusion of authenticity. Numerous measurements, in and of themselves, do not prove that something is right, it only proves that numerous hours have been spent making measurements. William Shanks, a famous mathematician, spent most of his life trying to calculate the elusive decimal value of the geometrical Pi (3.14 ...). In 1874, he achieved a new record that lasted for 73 years. Unfortunately though, it was later discovered Shanks made an error in his math, rendering many years of his work worthless. (Source: History of Pi, 1989)
In case you are interested in putting the current record in your Who Cares Book, Pi can now be expressed to 1,011,196,691 decimal points. If this number were to be printed, it would produce a stack of computer paper 125 feet high. This number is also available on 2000 pieces of microfiche. So, if you have been thinking about ordering a copy for yourself or your college-bound student, be prepared to pay extra for shipping. The collective weight of these 2000 pieces is 100 pounds. (Source: Discover, January, 1990)
It only takes one fundamental flaw to make any work worthless. Although evolutionists have accumulated millions of complicated and impressive measurements that give the illusion of authenticity, the theory of evolution is still wrong. The theory is built upon a false foundation, thereby rendering most of these complicated measurements worthless. We will focus our attention on this false foundation.
The theory of evolution, of course, is the idea that matter can spontaneously (on its own) become more complex and useful. This theory, though, is clearly contrary to all known science. In fact, one of the most fundamental laws of science, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, clearly refutes this. Basically, this law says that matter naturally moves toward a state that is less complex and useful. Matter will never become more complex and organized on its own. (Source: Encyclopedia America, 1988)
The universe is running down and eventually will "die." This "death" means there will be nothing more in the universe to deteriorate. Nothing will be functioning. Never again will there be any movement or activity in the universe. (Source: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1988)
Although schools currently teach the theory of evolution as one continuous process, it is actually made up of two main components: The evolution of the universe and the evolution of life. In the 1800s, not much attention was given to the origin of the universe. The evolutionists had the luxury of saying the universe had always been in existence and no one could prove otherwise. Since the universe had always been in existence, there was no need for a "creator God."
The only thing the evolutionists had to concern themselves with was to convince the general public that life could actually evolve out of a pool of chemicals and then advance into more complex creatures. This really wasn’t that difficult of a task for two reasons. First, the evolutionists showed many animals that were quite similar in appearance, but yet, were obviously different creatures. These similarities in appearances were presented as proof that gradual evolutionary changes are taking place.
The second reason people have been easily swayed toward evolution is "nature" itself appears to have a propensity toward creating life. Nature is often viewed as this mysterious force which struggles to produce life out of bareness. When you listen to science documentaries, they talk about nature as if it has a personality and a will. They talk about nature like it is some type of a mystical person.
This misconception is reinforced when people see areas that have been totally destroyed by volcanoes, fires or bombs, and yet plant life still finds a way to spring up. People think to themselves, "If nature struggles so hard to bring forth life in these desolate areas, then nature has the will and ability to produce life out of a pool of chemicals." It is important to note the only reason these devastated areas are capable of producing "new life" is because seeds (which already exist) are being spread all over the world via wind, storms, and bird droppings.
Later, in the 1900s, when the second law of thermodynamics became accepted as one of the most fundamental laws of physics, the evolutionists had a problem. They no longer had the luxury of being able to say the universe had always been in existence. The fact that the universe is deteriorating and will eventually die, means it could not always have been in existence. It had to have had a beginning. Therefore, they came up with the "Big Bang" theory to explain away the need for a Creator God.
I would like to point out there is absolutely no evidence supporting the possibility of the Big Bang. In fact, the books of many leading evolutionists openly admit they believe the Big Bang is not possible, but since this theory is all they have, they have decided to stay with it.
The science used by the evolutionists is bad science. You cannot selectively ignore evidence that happens to contradict your beliefs. If I wanted to, I could say the universe came into existence because a gigantic chicken sneezed. Incredibly, I would have just as much evidence to support my claim as the evolutionists do to support their claim of the Big Bang. All I can say is if the scientists at NASA blatantly ignored basic laws of physics and falsified their research the same way the evolutionists do, we would never have made it to the moon. In fact, we would have never even made it into outer space.
I am not going to try to disprove the "Big Bang" theory. It should be obvious a chaotic and violent explosion cannot produce something more complex and organized than it’s original state. In fact, the laws of thermodynamics clearly state the more intense and powerful an explosion, the faster all objects in its proximity will deteriorate. If there was any organized structure before the so-called Big Bang, it would have been torn apart by the explosion.
The best way to approach the issue of evolution is to discuss the universe in its original state. The very fact evolutionists deny the existence of God forces them to concede that everything in the universe started out in its simplest and most unorganized state. To believe otherwise would mean there was an "organizer." This, of course, is something the evolutionists would never admit.
When something is in its simplest and most unorganized state, it is defined as being "dead." As mentioned earlier, the laws of physics clearly dictates there will never be any movement or activity when something is in this state. Therefore, if there is no activity or movement, there can never be any evolution. If there was no activity, there was nothing that could even trigger the Big Bang.
Evolutionists try to sidestep this impossibility by saying time and chance can make anything possible. They feel that increasing the number of chances always increases the possibility of an event occurring. They point to dice as an example. If you roll a dice enough times, you will eventually roll a "6." Therefore, they reason, even though there is only a "1 in 10 billion" chance of the first step of evolution occurring, it will eventually happen.
However, before there can be a chance of an occurrence, there first has to be the potential. As with the example of the dice, the dice must have a "6" on it before there is the potential of a "6" being rolled. What would happen if there was no "6" on the dice? You would never roll a "6." No matter how often you rolled the dice, a "6" would never come up. There is not even a 1 in 10 billion chance that a "6" would turn up. There is no chance!
Likewise, before we can say there is a chance that evolution will take place, there first has to be the potential for it. As already discussed, the universe had no movement or activity, therefore there is no potential!
Here is another question for the evolutionists. They say the universe started as a mass of unorganized matter/energy. Where did this come from? Just because something is unorganized does not mean it came into existence by itself. It, too, must have come from somewhere.
Why, then, do intelligent people, some of whom are scientists, believe in a theory that is so contrary to basic science? We must try to understand the evolutionist as well as refute his ideas. Evolutionists fall into two groups, those who have thoroughly researched the facts and those who have not.
The reason people still believe in evolution although they have researched the facts, is not because science validates evolution, but rather there is a moral problem in their life. They realize there are major contradictions within their theory, but they still choose to believe a lie. They do not want to accept the idea that life and the universe were "created" because this would mean there is an Almighty Creator God. The existence of a supreme being mandates moral accountability for their actions. These evolutionists cannot find God for the same reason thieves cannot find a cop; they deliberately are not looking.
The other group consists of evolutionists who have not thoroughly researched the facts. Generally, they do not realize that there are gapping contradictions in the basic theory of evolution. They assume what they have been taught in school and by the media is true. They are unaware they have been deliberately misled. Although they may not believe in God, their acceptance of evolution is not an attempt to avoid God.
When I am talking with a person and the subject of evolution comes up, I first try to determine the sincerity of his interest. The subject of evolution may have been brought up to sidetrack our original discussion of the gospel or it may have been a natural extension of the conversation. To determine this I ask, "If I could show you, beyond any reasonable doubt, that there is an Almighty God, would you be willing to admit His existence?" If the person says yes, I take the time to pursue the subject. If he says no, I usually say, "Well, it is obvious you are not being honest with yourself and are not using facts to substantiate your beliefs. I am not going to waste your time or mine discussing this further."
Some people have committed what is called "intellectual suicide;" a denial of facts. Intellectual suicide takes place when a person sees something is true, and yet, still refuses to believe it. It is similar to a person touring a major airport and then denying the existence of airplanes. I have found that usually if a person is unwilling to take an honest look at the facts, he will only be argumentative when involved in a discussion.
An avid evolutionist was once asked, "If you could be shown there is a God who loves and cares for you, would you be willing to accept His existence?" His response was "No. I like being in control of my life and I do not want to be under someone else’s rule." Do not give up on the spiritual destiny of an evolutionist such as this. Pray for him and seek new opportunities to share the gospel with him, but do not waste your time with fruitless arguments.
If the universe did not evolve on its own, where did it come from? The universe was not organized into its complex state by a natural force. It had to be built by something above the natural, by something supernatural. Scientific deduction demands that we arrive at this conclusion.
This supernatural creator has to be eternal and almighty. Otherwise, he too would need a creator. God Almighty is our logical choice. You may ask, "Where did God come from?" I do not know. God, by His very nature, is supernatural and, therefore, His eternal existence cannot be explained. However, science does not support evolution. In fact, it disproves the theory. Although a person may refuse to believe in a supernatural being such as God, he cannot say science disproves the existence of God.
Other Chapters in this Section
Copyright © 1987 -2004 Michael Bronson | Site Design by Imagination 2 Reality